“[i]I’m too scientific for religious superstition. Science is the only way of gaining knowledge of reality, and it tells us the physical world is all there is.[/i]" This claim is called scientism, the view that science is the paradigm of truth and rationality. There are two forms of scientism: strong and weak. [b]Strong scientism implies that something is true if and only if it is a scientific claim that has been successfully tested and used according to appropriate scientific methodology. [/b]Within this view, there are no truths apart from scientific "truths," and even if there were, there would be no reason to believe them. [b]Weak scientism allows for truths to exist [i]apart from science[/i] and grants them some minimal rational status without scientific support.[/b] For example, r[i]a[/i]pe is wrong, but you can't prove it; euthanasia is inhumane, but you can't prove it; N[i]a[/i]zis are corrupt, but you can't prove it; et cetera. The thinking causes drastic implications for studies like soteriology, eschatology, and theology. If strong scientism is true, then theology is not a cognitive enterprise at all, and there is no such thing as theological knowledge. If weak scientism is true, then the conversation between theology and science will at least be a cooperative and robust discussion between the sciences. [u]How do we determine which is actually best?[/u] Note first that [b]strong scientism is self-refuting[/b]. Strong scientism is not itself a proposition of science but a proposition of philosophy about science to the effect that only scientific propositions are true and/or rational. It assumes the mentality that only if something is scientifically proven, it is true, [b]which allows the toleration of anything [/b]unless you can "scientifically" prove that it's unethical (like abortion, homosexuality, transgenders, "sorcery," etc). Strong scientism does not adequately allow for the task of stating and defending the necessary presuppositions for the coexistence of ethics and science to be practiced; thus, strong scientism shows itself to be a foe and not a friend of either ethics or science. With regards to all of scientism, [b]it has many assumptions.[/b] Each has been challenged, and the task of stating and defending these assumptions ends up becoming a philosophical debate or an unorganized argument since the conclusions of science cannot be more certain than the presuppositions it rests upon and the acclaimed reliability of its uses to reach those conclusions, no matter the human dishonesty and random error. However, there are true, rational beliefs in fields outside science whether we seek to prove them or not. Strong scientism does not allow for this fact since it relies on the tangible and physical evidence as fact and foremost than any acclaimed spiritual "truth" even though [b]it is more adequately exhibited for humans to be obligated to those claims outside science[/b] (e.g., "Torturing babies is wrong," "I am now thinking about science," etc.) are better justified than some believed within science (e.g., "Evolution takes place through a series of very small steps"). The real question is "Why do humans even care?" which is one of the most determining thoughts that distinguishes man from animal: [b]For some reason, we care about these unwritten truths entitled ethics.[/b]